Originally Posted by nogods

Again, you need to read the Peter Zenger case and its importance in our history of jurisprudence. Jury Nullification is a well recognized tradition in our system.

You are misguided about a jury's ability to convict.

Many judges will allow a jury to address a criminal charge even though the judge believes the government has failed to prove its case. There are many reasons for doing so, but if the jury comes back with a conviction contrary to a judge's opinion of the proper decision, the judge can and will enter a directed verdict (or in some jurisdictions, a verdict not withstanding the jury's verdict.)

A judge can do that in the case of a conviction by a jury for what he or she believes is an improper conviction. A judge can do that because a jury can only convict in accordance with law.

But a judge cannot enter a directed verdict for conviction over a jury's acquittal. That is the essence of the Zenger case tradition of jury nullification, and it is sanctioned in our system because a jury can acquit for "any reason or no reason" despite what the judge might think.

I understand and respect that you don't think it should be that way. But that is a different issue the one about the way things are.